- Chief Compliance Officer and VP of Legal Affairs, Arrow Electronics
By 
Aly McDevitt2020-09-16T13:00:00
Two months after receiving the Department of Justice’s court order in June 2019, Carnival was able to tick off an important item from its to-do list: the hiring of a new chief ethics and compliance officer (CECO).
One of the court’s stipulations had been that Carnival appoint a new chief corporate compliance officer. Carnival did them one better: It found someone who could not only drive the movement of a centralized, enterprise-wide compliance department, but who also had big ideas about how to improve the ethical culture of the corporation. His name was Peter Anderson.
The emphasis on “ethics” in Anderson’s new job title, as well as in the corporate compliance department itself, was intentional. At least half of Carnival’s problems cited in court were ethics-based, according to Anderson. And if history repeating itself taught anything, it’s that the cause of Carnival’s problems may have been rooted in an ethical deficit all along. The solution had to be based on strengthening the corporate culture.
THIS IS MEMBERS-ONLY CONTENT. To continue reading, choose one of the options below.
News and analysis for the well-informed compliance or audit exec. Select an option and click continue.
Annual Membership $499 Value offer
Full price one year membership with auto-renewal.
Membership $599
One-year only, no auto-renewal.
It’s been a long “integrity journey” for Ericsson, according to the company’s Head of Compliance Global Affairs Alison Howell. Since settling with the DOJ over FCPA violations in 2019, the company has gone through a "business critical transformation," resulting in the end of its compliance monitorship.
Whether you’re a multinational telecommunications company looking to certify your anti-corruption program post-settlement, or a biochemical company victimized by a “rogue” employee, seeing the light at the end of the enforcement tunnel isn’t always easy.
Bank of America avoided a monetary penalty in agreeing to settle charges with the Treasury Department’s Office of the Comptroller of the Currency but was ordered to shore up previously disclosed deficiencies in its Bank Secrecy Act/anti-money laundering (BSA/AML) and sanctions compliance programs.
Both JPMorgan Chase and Deutsche Bank retained their respective Jeffrey Epstein relationships for too long. Yet, there is a case to be made for why exiting a high-risk relationship too soon can become an inverse form of recklessness.
Why did JPMorgan Chase retain Jeffrey Epstein for more than a dozen years? How did the relationship persist despite glaring red flags? The “why” is straightforward; the “how” is more complicated.
Jeffrey Epstein’s designation as a high-risk client should have subjected him to enhanced due diligence that never appeared to occur, most notably at Deutsche Bank. Instead, Epstein was allowed to continue his misconduct despite numerous red flags.
